User talk:Tony Sidaway

 edit icons

I'm probably going to be busy for a bit. Try email but don't expect a prompt response. 25 Oct 2006

Re: Star Wars Kid

Sorry, didn't mean to be rude, but it seemed like something of a drastic edit to make without any discussion. Frankly, I'm not terribly interested in the subject (such as it is), but I'm forced to wonder: has a decision been reached somewhere recommending a redirect? If not, I think we'd have a hard time explaining the removal of so much of what makes the article noteworthy. Cheers, Albrecht 04:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, what makes the subject noteworthy is the fact that it became an internet meme. The article is really only about the person, and that's one of those edgy things that I don't think we want to do with Wikipedia. This is roughly what happened: young kid plays with light saber, makes cool movie and puts it on internet; internet jackasses make fun of kid, who they think looks fat and nerdy; kid gets upset, tries to sue. Kid's young life has been ruined before it's started.

Now my view of this is that we can cover this in a sensitive way, talking about the meme, or we can join in with the jackasses and cover his futile, tragic attempts to stop his persecutors, in loving detail. Guess which I chose. Would you mind if I reverted? --Tony Sidaway 04:50, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I feel they could be better addressed by editing the article to refocus it on the meme, rather than throwing out several decent paragraphs talking about its popularity that don't mention the kid himself at all. Have you considered just editing the article to make the kid's position in it less prominent? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I took your advice. Would you like to take a look at the article Star Wars kid now? --Tony Sidaway 05:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the name should still appear somewhere in the article, as long as it's not leading off with "xxxx is the star wars kid." It needs a longer lead that explains what happened and just how popular it is anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the name belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. He's a private individual. --Tony Sidaway 06:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see how the real name adds to the encyclopedic quality of the article, but I can see how not having the real name benefits the person involved. Daniel 06:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be removed; it doesn't "protect" him from anything since his name's really just a Google Search away. His name's even in the first sentence of one of the references. Raza made a fool of himself and he'll have to live with it, it's not illegal to show his name unlike another case. Saving him from embarrassment isn't going to happen by removing his name. LikuX 10:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

We're a top ten site. When someone types in star wars kid in google, odds are they'll come to our article (at present the top hit on the UK version of the search engine is our article). They can read all about the phenomenon there without learning the name of the person. If they want the name, it's just one click away. But we don't give it ourselves, so many people who go to google will not be exposed to that name, and the chances of the private individual being associated indelibly with that web meme are substantially reduced, although of course we can't completely eliminate the association completely because we're only responsible for keeping our own patch clean.

You look at the video and see someone making a fool of himself. I see a child playing as children play, without any expectation that the privacy of his play would be compromised by a malicious individual. Nobody should have to live with the consequences of bullying. --Tony Sidaway 13:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Seems like a good compromise to me. By the way, you have been doing some good work, Tony. Thanks. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

42 (Doctor Who episode)

(You removed my references to X-Men and Solaris, others' references to Hitchhiker's, etc, etc. on the basis of it being original research)

And yet it'd done all of the time in trivia sections of Doctor Who episode articles. It's fun to for viewers to share stuff like this. Real encyclopedias don't contain these kinds of pop culture articles, or trivia. Why, oh why do pedantic editors try to hold Wikipedia to the standards of real encyclopedias, when they participate in such articles in the first place? (Throws hands in the air.)

Congradulations, a few minutes ago the article was getting robust and interesting, and in a flurry of destructive edits, you've gutted it. So many things that remain in the article are unsourced and original research. The entire summaries of all of the episodes are unsourced original research, as are the cast lists, and so on, and so on. God, man. When it comes to fannish articles like these, you can't be a scholar and pedant, it's so antithetic to the existence of these kinds of articles, and deadly to the morale of the people who use and contribute to them. -- AvatarMN 08:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, not a fan site. There are Doctor Who wikis, I believe. --Tony Sidaway 08:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

"Encyclopedias" don't have articles on Doctor Who. Wikipedia does. Doctor Who wikis are anemic because they don't have the usership that Wikipedia does... which has articles on Doctor Who. And you, sir, use and contribute to them. How you can argue about stuff like this is puzzling. And you don't argue my points that these articles are by nature and necessity unsourced and full of original research, I notice. I don't think you can. Argue that articles such as these don't belong in "Wikipedia, an encyclopedia" if this is how you really feel. AvatarMN 08:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You have a point about the plot summaries. If you make a case for removal on the grounds that they are original research, I will support you. --Tony Sidaway 08:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Remove plot summaries on 188 articles? Gutting the work and spoiling the fun of thousands, maybe millions of editors and users? Getting into protracted disputes with all of these well-meaning, helpful, and satisfied folks? All for a principle that is totally antithetical to the very existence of such articles, and clearly overruled by the fact of the continued and long-standing existence of they and countless other articles on other shows? No way, man! That sounds like a larger scale of what someone goes around doing, but it sure as shit isn't me. And if you cede my point on the summaries, I don't think you can hold the against the points I've made on the other contributions. -- AvatarMN 09:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mean it, don't suggest it. However, if you do, I'll support you. --Tony Sidaway 09:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't suggest it. I said that they're proof that these sort of articles are by necessity unsourced and full of original research. And I suggested that if you are going to remove some contributions on those grounds and not others that also "qualify for removal" on those grounds, you don't have a leg to stand on and should knock it off. -- AvatarMN 09:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of plot summaries and original research - and quite a few other issues where I've objected to your actions, Tony - Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applies: use common sense. For example, although the Helen-Raynor-Only-Female-Writer was original research by the exact wording of that guideline, it was indisputably true. Equally, although the plot summary is open to different interpretations, the most common one, as listed on the page, will be true. So, use common sense before enforcing the rules. We only need to follow their spirit.--Rambutan (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think he has a point over plot summaries as original research? Provided a summary doesn't try to interpret the plot beyond simply stating what occurs on screen, there shouldn't be a problem. Digby Tantrum 09:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The plot summaries on most of the Doctor Who articles are derived from amateur aural transcription. A case could be made that this requires a certain amount of synthesis. In any case it's not necessary for an encyclopedia article about a fictional work to discuss its plot in the kind of detail that the Doctor Who articles do. Brief synopses referring to reliable external sources would work quite well. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You're saying you want less information on Wikipedia? I would have thought the more information available to the public the better. Also, when you find yourself apparently "the only one in step", you are probably the very opposite. I suggest that, should you not wish to be up against a barrage of complaints and continual reverts of your edits, which to many border on vandalism (Indeed, you were once termed "borderline insane" - hardly an accolade for editing an international encyclopaedia! [1]. Of course, I have my tongue in my cheek, but the point remains.), you adopt a less hardline approach to your editing. Wikipedia thrives on the masses putting their work forward for all to benefit. What your are doing is entirely against the grain of general opinion and is therefore the kind of action which will one day doom this outstanding facility. JPBarrass 15:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way it's not permitted to link to personal attacks on external websites. Thought you might like to file that away for future reference. I've never had any problems with people reverting my edits. --Tony Sidaway 15:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Should you read that external site, you will find that it does in fact praise you with words like accomplished, so is hardly an attack. It just has a rather interesting sidenote. I believe you when you say that you have not had a problem with people reverting your edits, because, from what I've read on this page, your edits are generally reversions of other people's good work, which could easily be classified as vandalism. Read this page. How many people are there complaining about you? Now read it again and count how many are supporting you. Now go away, think about yourself and come back a calmer person with a brighter outlook on life. JPBarrass 08:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a vandal. I'm a quite calm person and I haven't a problem responding to criticism. I've got all the support I need to function very effectively on Wikipedia, which is what counts. --Tony Sidaway 11:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One of the problems with our episode articles is that the plot descriptions are very long and poorly written. This actually conceals useful information from the public by drowning it in a mass of inconsequential detail. See for instance the discussion on Talk:Smith and Jones (Doctor Who) about a proposal by me to rewrite the plot to omit such detail in favor of giving a good narrative account of the plot. --Tony Sidaway 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The solution to that would be simple: have a blurb section and a more detailed section. JPBarrass 15:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I can prove that you're retalliating against me and targeting my edits for reversion; this is harassment. You used my edits history to find the article Ashitare, where, during our argument, I had chanced into a typo and fixed it. You didn't revert my edit, but you made a format edit that left your footprint in the article's history. Is it ethical to hound someone like this, I wonder? -- AvatarMN 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not retaliating in any way, just removed a bad edit or two after you openly espoused the addition of unsourced rubbish to Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway 10:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If you care, I've now added something of an open letter to my own talk page. -- AvatarMN 23:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Hey

Nice sig! I'm jealous :P [2]. R 13:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring signatures

Any particular reason why you refactored my signature on a comments page here? I know I was editing from my alternate account, but I thought that using my regular signature made my identity sufficiently clear. Walton ^{Need some help?} 16:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I expect it's because your sig is barely readable :-\ Matthew 17:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mainly I refactor it because it looks like this:
<font face="Verdana">[[User:Walton_monarchist89|<font
color="Purple">'''Wal'''</font>]][[User talk:Walton_monarchist89|<font
color="silver">'''ton'''</font>]] <small>^{<font
color="Purple">[[WP:ASSIST|Need some help?]]</font>}</small></font> 16:56, 22
May 2007 (UTC)

Thus is takes up three or four lines in my edit box that could contain discussion. Refactorimg it significantly reduces noise in the discussion, making it easier to follow. --Tony Sidaway 17:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I won't pick a fight with you over this, but if you refactor my sig in future, can you please refactor it to "Walton" in plain text, not "Walton_monarchist89" (as at the end of this posting)? I don't like my username much, and unfortunately WP:CHU is out of the question because there's already a User:Walton who has made some edits, hence not a candidate for usurpation. Walton 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

If I do that, won't people think you are User walton? In fact I used to think that. It's very confusing. Couldn't you just choose a username that is available and that you do like? --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps [[User:Walton_monarchist89|Walton]] is what s/he is asking for. Navou 17:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know what he wants. My problem is that this would make him appear to be user walton. --Tony Sidaway 17:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've been using my current sig for several months and no one's complained. User:Walton has not been seen since January 2006 and made fewer than 10 edits in total, so s/he is not likely to take issue with it. Walton^Assistance! 18:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In any case, ideally I'd prefer you not to refactor my sig at all. I was just saying that if you insist on doing so, please use the name that I normally use. You may also notice that I've changed my signature - it's now only 2-3 lines of HTML code (depending on monitor size) and should be less obtrusive. Walton^Assistance! 19:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

unwritten policies on sensitivity

Hello,

There seems to be an unwritten policy: "Minors known exclusively for events which would embarrass them will not be mentioned by name or have articles created containing their name or image"

It seems like a reasonable policy.

Why is it not part of the Biography of Living Persons policy (perhaps in the private figures section)?

The WP:BLP currently seems to focus more on following content policies than on the sensitivity policies. It mentions sensitivity, but is somewhat vague on what is meant by the term.

The "do no harm" section would seem to include this case, but it is softened at the end with "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." which some could infer to mean that a "sourced/neutral/on-topic" article would be an acceptable way to remove doubt about an articles appropriateness. (I'm not claiming to agree with that inference).

If there is a reason for not making it policy, would it be acceptable to list it as a "for example" as in:

Sensitivity concerns to living persons should be given much weight, and an article that is sourced, neutral, and on-topic may still be inappropriate. For example: minors known exclusively for events which would embarrass them will not be mentioned by name or have articles created containing their name or image.

Such a statement may lead to increased discussion or disagreement about sensitivity (which may not be a bad thing - it would be preferable to increased discussion or disagreement about policy)

I posted this here instead of at WP:BLP because you seem to be involved in actions related to minors and have experience in this area. Uncle uncle uncle 18:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw when you posted something similar on another user's talk page. I haven't read our biographies of living persons policy, I just follow commonsense, and so far it seems to have been broadly in keeping with that policy, even if some of the bits that are obvious to me may not actually be written up well in the policy. --Tony Sidaway 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff comments

Re: [3], please play nice. Georgewilliamherbert 00:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You would notice if I wasn't playing nice. --Tony Sidaway 00:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nevertheless... Georgewilliamherbert 00:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He needs to be told. He's very close to going too far. --Tony Sidaway 01:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is telling him that he's skirting with incivility, then there's threatening him, which is incivil in and of itself. Two wrongs won't make a right; they'll escalate the situation instead of defusing it.

I have also asked him to keep it civil. Georgewilliamherbert 01:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about civility. He can eff and blind all he likes for all I care, but there are some things that he is contemplating right now which would severely disrupt Wikipedia. He needs to know that this would be a bad thing to do. I've told him. --Tony Sidaway 01:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:Badlydrawnjeff

Per approximately two hours of IRC discussion, it had been determined that the disruption caused by that user outweighed any efforts to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. The amount of drama and all around chaos that has come as a result of his actions and the resulting actions of others caused is a disruption and an exhaustion of the community's time, as noted in the block reason. As one of many administrators, others have been in contact with the user and have taken actions that you described, such as warning the user. This issue is no longer a single admin's responsibility, nor is it the responsibility of the community as a whole. While I am not suggesting that this is elitist, it is the responsibility of all administrators, of which there has been consensus, to act when events like this occur to prevent any further damage to the project. Zsinj 02:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's the biggest load of codswallop I ever heard. What are you on? --Tony Sidaway 02:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And, for the record, I appreciate your commentary during this situation. It was unexpected and very big of you. Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That'll teach to me to snooze in front of the baseball game. You should never block somebody based on what may have been discussed on IRC, especially when the issues in question are pending in an arbitration case! I see he's been unblocked already; beat me to it. Please don't do that again. Mackensen (talk) 02:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely appalling behavior, apology or no. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 13:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: User talk: Gomez3000adams

Kindly point me to the 'freely licensed image [that] could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information' and I'll gladly replace the current image, that is if you're unable or unwilling to do the same.Gomez3000adams 03:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

They're living people. You could actually walk up to them and ask them for a free photograph. --Tony Sidaway 04:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"You could actually walk up to them and ask them for a free photograph" remember the WP rule of 'don't be a dick'? No, I didn't think so. 04:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea what you mean by that remark. Why don't you email them? --Tony Sidaway 04:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know who left the unsigned comment, but walk up to them and ask for a free photograph???. You mean like Paparazzi? You can't really be serious. Anyway WP:NFCC says 'Non-free content is always replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available. "Acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose.' Since no one has proferred an alternative of "Acceptable quality" so far and I don't intend to stalk anyone for images, I don't see why the current image shouldn't remain for the moment.Gomez3000adams 05:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, it was me that left the unsigned comment above. Sorry. Duke53 | ^Talk 05:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

See the Non-free_content guideline, section "Examples of unacceptable use", example 8, which says:

An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph.

This is why I said you could walk up to these chaps, or email them. They're alive. The pictures are only there to show what they look like, and have no other function. --Tony Sidaway 06:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture of Crystal Gail Mangum was being used to illustrate the fact that her face wasn't 'battered & bruised' as she (and her father) claimed. She claimed that she had been brutally beaten about her head and face two days before this photo was taken by Durham, NC police. Her claims of having swollen and blackened eyes from this alleged beating are refuted by this photo. Duke53 06:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you need the Smoking Gun. What you're referring to above is known here as original research and is not permitted. --Tony Sidaway 06:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it original research when the Durham PD released the photo specifically to dispel rumors about the 'beating' that she alleged had taken place? Nope. Duke53 | ^Talk 06:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source for that, put it in the article. --Tony Sidaway 06:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see your point. The image is a mugshot (and not merely a likeness) of two suspects arrested and charged in a very public case and hence has historical importance in relation to the case. It also shows what they looked like at the time of the case. A fair replacement would have to be another mugshot or at least an image of the defendants at the time of the case.Gomez3000adams 07:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Historic" is pushing the envelope somewhat. As for what they look like, if that's important we can wait until someone procures a free picture. If you ask me, I'd say that what they look like, whether in a mugshot or in a photo album shot, is immaterial to the case. They look pretty much like you'd expect American college lacrosse players to look like. --Tony Sidaway 13:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

??????

The picture was definitely too much and was completely unnecessary. — MichaelLinnear 05:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Help:Modifying and Creating policy

The drama continues. Having run out of arguments and lacking evidence, the main supporter of this page has now resorted to canvassing, and started to accuse people who disagree with him of trolling [4]. FYI. >Radiant< 08:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• • Hmm! Who is canvassing? --Kevin Murray 08:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • You. [5] [6] [7]. Radiant! 08:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

      I don't see a problem with drafting in three or four experienced, trusted editors in a situation like this. Spamming a dozen talk pages would be a different matter. --Tony Sidaway 13:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Don't play with your buttons when you're drunk, kids!"

I would like to make it known that I was not drunk when I made that action, nor have I ever even consumed alcohol regardless of what others may think. Thank you. Zsinj 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes I'm sorry, I could have phrased that better. I was pretty angry, which is unusual for me. "Don't play with the keyboard when you're angry" applies just as well to me. --Tony Sidaway 13:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Help

Can you help me by telling me how to copyright my image Image:Bothferry.jpg I dont know how to do it.

If you took it yourself, edit the page to insert {{gfdl-self}}. In the edit summary put "On advice of Tony Sidaway". You can remove everything else from that page, as long as you meake sure you include the above. --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP

The real problem is getting from here to there. I'm thinking now about the fact that MedCom was established by Jimbo with a specific mandate and a slate of starting mediators, and then basically left to run itself. Because a BLP board is going to be so much more deletionist than any other deletion-related process to date, I wonder if it won't take a decree from Jimbo to establish the BLP board. Whether he does it or the community does it on its own, what I envision is a largely self-governing committee that will deal with contested deletions of BLP articles (not BLP concerns in general, which can be dealt with by any reasonable editor or admin, but only with contested deletions). The committee's deliberations could be private or open, but should be made in a timely fashion and announced with a detailed rationale. (I would be in favor of open discussion but could be persuaded.) Once established, the committee would select its own membership. Appeal would be to ArbCom. Assuming the committee understands its scope, most appeals would be denied, thereby affirming the BLP committee's decision. Arbitrators could informally provide guidance that the interpretation of BLP was too strict or not strict enough in particular cases, could ask members to voluntarily step down if needed, or even formally overrule the BLP committee (in either direction) as needed. It shouldn't take too many cases for the BLP committee to figure out how far it should go, and for the community to figure out which cases are worth appealing to ArbCom and which are not. ( Inveterate inclusionists will eventually get bonked by the Arbcom cluestick.)

The big problem is that I can't see any way of establishing this sort of committee other than Jimbo, since the Arbcom doesn't at present have jurisdiction, and there are too many people who don't understand BLP, and too many more who understand but don't care, to get this approved as a consensus process.

Other potential concerns (minor only in comparison to the big one above) would be to keep the BLP committee out of ordinary BLP disputes, they shouldn't start throwing their weight around, partially for more credibility on deletion review but mainly because everyone will start taking every little BLP problem to them. The BLP committee should probably not enjoy it, and if given nearly unreviewable authority would have to be extremely sensitive to arguments that they were going too far in the deletionist direction. It might even be good to have a jeff on the committee, even if most reviews were still voted down. A lot of the fine details would have to be worked out in practice. Thatcher131 00:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

CGM

since the DRV is back open, it's moot now. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The muck in the history is now undeleted. --Tony Sidaway 04:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is necessary to make a rational decision on whether it should be allowed to exist. Having it undeleted for a week or two while we debate it is less harmful than having a closed process and arguing blindly. Nothing in it isn't already public. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's already public isn't the issue. Wikipedia is a top ten website. But if at least the article remains as a redirect for the length of the debate I suppose that's enough. --Tony Sidaway 04:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If they're delving into the history to find it, they could have found it anyway anywhere else. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. The question is whether Wikipedia should provide this muck. It's a moral question. --Tony Sidaway 04:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Which you can't settle without knowing what the muck is. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No that's not necessary. Administrators can still see deleted revisions, as you're aware. --Tony Sidaway 05:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing that says this discussion ought to be limited to administrators. No content decisions are. It's arbcom, office, jimbo, or everybody. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 05:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how long you've been discussing these matters on deletion review. History undeletion may sometimes be performed while an article is on deletion review but this is not appropriate when the reason for deletion was inappropriate content. But in any case it's not a serious problem, just a niggle. --Tony Sidaway 06:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR

3RR only applies to edits made on the same day, not on seperate dates. (Ibaranoff24 08:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Yes, that's about it, except that the rules applies to any 24 hour period, not same day. And gaming, for instance counting making three reverts one day and three reverts the next, is blockable behavior. --Tony Sidaway 08:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Another suggested deletion

Here is another article you may want to have deleted. [8] although the other related party [9] with a similar case may be slightly different as his parents formed a foundation using his name. Uncle uncle uncle 17:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this as I am considering deleting this article summarily. Newyorkbrad 19:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I discussed these with Cary Bass and he said he thought Ben Ownby should probably be listed for deletion, but speedy might be more appropriate. It's tabloid journalism and there's nothing else to write about except this unfortunate boy's experience. --Tony Sidaway 19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

After having given this considerable thought (and interrupting a mini-Wikibreak, although my success rate in taking Wikibreaks lately is virtually non-existent), I have gone ahead and deleted both articles. They concern two juveniles, still alive and still minors, who were the victims of kidnapping and horrific multiple sexual assaults. The mass media would probably not have printed their names but for the fact that they were kidnapped before being assaulted, resulting in "missing children" publicity, and the media may have felt it was too late to put the genie of publicity back into the bottle. Wikipedia need not follow this course and as these teenagers seek to recover from their ordeals, there is no reason to publicize them further under the innocent victims' names, so that Wikipedia joins in ensuring that years from now, the first bit of information that will be available about these people is what a predator did to them. For legitimate encyclopedic purposes, sufficient coverage can be found in our article about the criminal, from which I have redacted only the victims' names—probably a symbolic gesture, but one I am comfortable with. And I truly urge those who support the inclusion of virtually all disputed content to consider whether a line must be drawn somewhere, and this is an appropriate place. Newyorkbrad 02:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

BARNSTAR!!!!!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I,dwrules award you this random acts of kindness barnstar for .... well.... random acts of kindness! Dwrules 18:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh how lovely! Thank you. --Tony Sidaway 18:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1 thing in return for the bottom of my userpage! --click here 15:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Divine Brown

Yes, I agree with this redirect. If the circumstances ever change where she receives more than non-trivial coverage, we can always revert and expand from those sources. Burntsauce 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well it's a judgement call. I felt that on balance her film and talk radio appearances in the wake of the arrest were not sufficient to sustain an article at present. I wouldn't object to a straight revert, because I'm not that committed to it. --Tony Sidaway 21:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If the article were to be relisted on AFD I am fairly confident it would have reached the same logical conclusion. Burntsauce 21:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well instead of that it looks like it'll be improved and kept. Unexpected but welcome. --Tony Sidaway 09:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tobias Conradi

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

• Tobias Conradi may be blocked up to an hour by any administrator for any personal attack or violation of civility.
• Tobias Conradi is limited to one revert per week on any article. This includes moves.
• Tobias Conradi is prohibited from maintaining laundry lists of grievances.
• Should Tobias Conradi violate any ban or prohibition imposed by this decision, he may be blocked by any administrator for up to one hour. Blocks need not be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 08:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent comments

I disagree with your decision here. I don't necessarily disagree with the articles themselves being deleted, as the topic itself probably should be covered in a different way, but I believe the process that has been used was highly improper. I also object to your calling the nomination itself "stupid" and "trollish," which felt a lot like a personal attack. --Bookworm857158367 00:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right, my comment was most uncivil and unworthy of me. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_May_23#Robyn_Dawkins_and_Gavin_Clinton-Parker

Please withdraw your closure of this. You VOTED in the discussion and called the nom "trollish". Given the appearance of bias and the fact you voted in this, please withdraw your closure. Someone else can close it. -Nardman1 00:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To Nardman, yes I also agree that my close was the correct one, but procedurally it lacked a certain something. I like it though. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, your closure was the incorrect one, through policy, process, and general logic. Stop. --badlydrawnjeff 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your content contributions are of very high quality and your criticisms are always sincere and valuable. But if you remain on Wikipedia, and for as long as you remain, you will probably have to get used to seeing three consonants used in close proximity and alphabetic succession: BLP. You may also see this a lot: do no harm. We were just playing at being an encyclopedia before. Now it's real. --Tony Sidaway 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP, while unfortunate, is policy. So let's enforce policy, not be morons about it. Start by reading it, Tony - your lack of knowledge of the policies you're invoking is incredibly embarrasing to you, and weakens your position. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know it backwards. It comprises three words: do no harm. If you regard that as unfortunate, tough. --Tony Sidaway 02:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You have yet to demonstrate harm. There's no harm to do in this case - the inforamtion is widely disseminated with or without Wikipedia, and it meets our standards - no harm. You should read the policies, Tony. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to convince me, try to convince those remaining on Wikipedia who will listen. --Tony Sidaway 02:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should remove yourself from these issues, since you've demonstrated a) a lack of ability to interpret the policy properly, and b) the opportunity to learn from such errors. I'm not the only one telling you you're wrong here, Tony, so you can't hang your hat on "oh, that crazy Jeff" this time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I think I can. Look at the edit history. --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like not a lot of support for your position. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh you'd be surprised! :-D --Tony Sidaway 02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll assume you're reading of this equals your reading of policy. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have mentioned you at WP:ANI, not as a complaint, but in the overall larger picture of the ongoing war between BLP and DRV. -N 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks. That's nice. --Tony Sidaway 01:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My comments on ANI

I don't know if you've seen them, or if you care, but anyway, sorry about calling for you to be blocked. I should have thought more about what I was saying, instead of just responding in the heat of the moment. -Amarkov moo! 19:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I'll put it down to your inexperience of Wikipedia policy in action. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

? -Amarkov moo! 19:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I assume you imagined I'd done something disruptive or otherwise blockable. --Tony Sidaway 20:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I do still believe that blanking userboxes that say admins shouldn't ignore consensus is disruptive, but it's not blockworthy. -Amarkov 20:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting userboxes that say inflammatory things is not disruptive, it's a very straightforward T1, but I was in a nice mood so I refrained from raining down electronic death. --Tony Sidaway 20:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to my userbox

Hi Tony, I just noticed your edit to my userbox (though it had already been undone by another editor). Personally I don't really think it is more inflammatory than perhaps, "This user is against editors vandalizing Wikipedia", but I know this might be a subjective view, so I am willing to let the community decide if you desire. Best wishes. CharonX 19:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember what it said, but it probably wasn't good. There are good ways and saying things and if I blanked a template in your user space it probably means you hadn't found the right way to say it. --Tony Sidaway 19:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gail Mangum

Mangojuice asked me to post about it at ANI. I'm not concerned enough about this specific article to start an RfC on it. That's Mango's decision. Instead, I think making other people aware of the ongoing dispute is enough at this point. At the right time the archived ANI discussions will serve as evidence of what's going on. -N 22:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you may not be aware of this, but here at Wikipedia we practise a technique known as "dispute resolution". It isn't enough to make people aware of the dispute, you should seek to resolve it with your disputants. Leaving these things to fester, or just posting on a noticeboard to say "look what this guy did now!" isn't on--particularly a noticeboard that is supposed to be used for urgent matters requiring immediate administrator action. --Tony Sidaway 22:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an urgent matter requiring administrator action when our own administrators ignore WP:CONSENSUS to impose their own views of how biography policies should be read. And yes I know about dispute resolution. I'm just saying, it's not a dispute I'm inclined to start a fight over at this time. Mangojuice said on his page that he wasn't going to fight it but an ANI posting was appropriate. If he wants to fight over it that's his business. -N 22:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Was any administrator action taken? If not, why do you think that might be? --Tony Sidaway 22:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Might need some assistance [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robyn_Dawkins_and_Gavin_Clinton-Parker[ See my talk page.--Doc^g 02:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)